| ▲ | tgv 6 days ago |
| > things that look like fish Well, apart from the circularity, we don't look like fish, do we? What we look like, we define, just like we define what 'fish' is. There's no need to go all Linnaeus about it. |
|
| ▲ | taeric 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| My stance is somewhat similar, I think? Arguments that try and precisely define "fish" in some sort of "context free" space are doomed because people don't think of terms outside of context. |
|
| ▲ | rikroots 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Human embryogenesis would like to disagree with you. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255 |
| |
| ▲ | tgv 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Evolving from doesn't make you the thing, does it? It makes you something else. Fish in particular, since that's a group of animals named by us, based on physical appearance. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 6 days ago | parent [-] | | > Evolving from doesn't make you the thing, does it? Depends on the system of taxonomy; in phylogenetic taxonomy, that’t exactly how membership in a clade is determined. | | |
| |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny. Exactly. But I believe in weak Haeckel's principle. |
|
